Should the USA be the policemen of the world?

[Loxo]

I think the U.S.A shouldn't be the policemen of the world because it'll cause a imbalance of power between the U.S. and other countries.

 

[Cassio]

Is there any evidence that says otherwise?

Yes. See: Gridlock in the US; the impending Economic meltdown in Europe.

vs.

China's relatively effective government.

Lol, ok. If you really want me to elaborate, I will.

If you have the resources to control the entire world, you basically have a monopoly. The rulers of said government can pretty much make any laws they want, so forget about democracy.

If you decentralize power this shouldnt be an issue. At least no more an issue than we'd have in the US (well, maybe a little more).

 

[Orboknown]

While crass, he didn't mean it like that. He's saying that your interpretation of the topic is too literal, and therefore will lead your line of discussion down the wrong path. By "policing" the World the OP is not referring to being actual police. It intends to speak about the US foreign policy on playing referee in other countries in matters of the state including but not limited to insurrection, terrorism, criminal enterprise and war. In a world where we "police" the world, we do what we've done in several countries, but instead in all countries.

Good recap of our basic foreign policy assumptions since the end of world war two,where we had to be the police enforcers because the only other country capable of doing so at the time(Soviet Russia) was our ideological enemy.

Your original stance fits, though. I agree that it's not logistacally possible for the US to successfully police the world, as the UN tries to do. I mean, as battlecow has pointed out, the UN fails at its job, and not just w/Rwanda, but in several other countries. If the UN, made up of the combined resources of over a hundred nations, cannot do this job, then there's no way the US could do it by itself.

Thats sorta(in my mind at the moment.I tend to reach conclusions without understanding exactly how i reach them at times, so i apologize for that in advance) like how everyone now agrees that the League of Nations(the post ww1 equivalent of the UN) couldnt work precisely because it didnt have the support of the United States.

I think the U.S.A shouldn't be the policemen of the world because it'll cause a imbalance of power between the U.S. and other countries.

would you mind expanding on that please?

China's relatively effective government.

oh,that government that massacred its own citizens in Tiananmen Square? Because we really want that in whatever country we may happen to live in.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

If you decentralize power this shouldnt be an issue. At least no more an issue than we'd have in the US (well, maybe a little more).

What exactly do you mean by this?

 

[Orboknown]

What exactly do you mean by this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization#Decentralised_governance
I believe he is refering to that.
Spreading power form a central authority to groups on the fringe or perimeter of authority.(IE federal to local transferance of power)

 

[Cassio]

Mostly yeah. The US itself exercises a a form of decentralized government called Federalism

oh,that government that massacred its own citizens in Tiananmen Square? Because we really want that in whatever country we may happen to live in.

The question was is there evidence that democracy is not the best form of government.

The answer is yes, there is evidence. I didnt say what form of government there ought to be.

But I will add that it shouldnt be taken for granted that democracy is your best bet or even reliable.

 

[Orboknown]

The question was is there evidence that democracy is not the best form of government.

The answer is yes, there is evidence. I didnt say what form of government there ought to be.

But I will add that it shouldnt be taken for granted that democracy is your best bet or even reliable.

However,it does seem to be one of the most stable forms,at least in the US where we have constitutional checks and balances.
But we digress from the original topic.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

No matter how decentralized you want to make government, there will always be corrupt people who want to have it all. They will find a way to get into power, and knowing history it's almost guaranteed. Just look at America's sad, sad situation now. Who do you think has power over the government? Congress? The president? Ha, don't make me laugh. It's the people with the money. The super rich. Corporations and such. They pretty much run congress and the president with their money.

We can start a separate thread for this if you want to debate more about one world government.

 

[Cassio]

Definitely agree that if you believe the US's decentralized system has failed then a global government is more than capable of doing so as well. However not everyone will likely agree about the US's decentralized system being a failure.

As for the topics main question, it depends. I think the US is incapable of being the global police so the answer is a definitive no for all practical purposes. But the answer may be different if the US had the resources and whether other entities are capable of doing so or just the US.

 

[Orboknown]

There were other entities farther back in history capable of doing so. The USSR for one. and Great Britain and France before the world wars.

 

[Deleted member]

No it should not police the world. There is no possible way we can look at every foreign action in this world and still be able to control it when we have massive problems fixing domestic issues. Other countries that are not in as bad of a situation as us will have to help out as well.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

It is obviously not capable of running a cosmopolitan government-like system, it runs the one of its own badly enough. Plus, it would be expensive, people would get annoyed with our constant interventions... the world would sooner become one United Nation before that happens.

 

[Orboknown]

@SmashFan-while the US may not be able to view every single action, it does get a lot of them noticed.

It is obviously not capable of running a cosmopolitan government-like system, it runs the one of its own badly enough. Plus, it would be expensive, people would get annoyed with our constant interventions... the world would sooner become one United Nation before that happens.

While that is true,the US really doesnt careif the people want us to intervene or not.
Look at vietnam or korea.Then look at all the intervening we have done in Latin america.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Granted, but considering it is impossible it isn't likely to happen. Also the question is should the USA be the policemen of the world, so I cast my vote that they shouldn't be.

 

[Orboknown]

oddly enough, i had to do my english final yesterday on why the US should be isolationist.
I quote Gw's farewell address and mentioned what happened with vietnam.
That said, someone has to help everything get sorted out.
Also,just replying to this i just noticed

I think the U.S.A shouldn't be the policemen of the world because it'll cause a imbalance of power between the U.S. and other countries.

that power imbalance has been here since the second world war,.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

http://chomsky.info/articles/20120214.htm

read this chomsky article to see how corrupt our country can be. Just a lil taste:

The most important victory of the Indochina wars was in 1965, when a U.S.-backed military coup in Indonesia led by General Suharto carried out massive crimes that were compared by the CIA to those of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. The "staggering mass slaughter," as the New York Times described it, was reported accurately across the mainstream, and with unrestrained euphoria.

It was "a gleam of light in Asia," as the noted liberal commentator James Reston wrote in the Times. The coup ended the threat of democracy by demolishing the mass-based political party of the poor, established a dictatorship that went on to compile one of the worst human rights records in the world, and threw the riches of the country open to western investors. Small wonder that, after many other horrors, including the near-genocidal invasion of East Timor, Suharto was welcomed by the Clinton administration in 1995 as "our kind of guy."

How can you say that the US deserve to police the world when it's the one committing some of it's most heinous crimes?!?!? How does our government instill a dictatorship in Indonesia the ****ing opposite of liberty and democracy and freedom. All because our government was afraid of losing the strangle hold we had on the far east.

How can you be proud of such a country to the point where you think it's ok, moral even to give the US complete power to police the world.

bleh. the only redeeming factors the US has right now is our strong STEM and innovation. This country used to be so great, its depressing to see what's happened to it.

Sorry i've been up for 24+ hrs and just needed to rant.

 

[yani]

Considering the U.S. can't even handle their own country, I don't believe they should be the policemen of the world. They get into more problems that they can handle, while wasting away lives of our soldiers.

 

[Pachinkosam]

i dont think usa needs the police too take over and act the boss.usa is a free country and i think army people get more respect than a police officer. when i see a cop in war ill look at them as a heroe.

 

[Orboknown]

i dont think usa needs the police too take over and act the boss.usa is a free country and i think army people get more respect than a police officer. when i see a cop in war ill look at them as a heroe.

Seriously, way to not be talking about the topic whatsoever. Can you please not post if it isn't relating to the topic?

I would make responses to stuff but everyone is saying " they shouldn't cuz people are dying". Not much i can say to counter that.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

I just realized there was a movie called Team America World Police

 

[Kal]

America, **** Yeah!

 

[Claire Diviner]

I just realized there was a movie called Team America World Police

You're almost a decade late. I can see a world police force being similar to what is portrayed in the movie, oddly enough.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

soo.....

can we agree that battlecow was pretty obviously horrifically and actually terrifyingly wrong?

lets not advocate for the consolidation of power especially not on such a global scale especially not with a govt that systematically misleads it's citizens and kills innocents regularly.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

soo.....

can we agree that battlecow was pretty obviously horrifically and actually terrifyingly wrong?

lets not advocate for the consolidation of power especially not on such a global scale especially not with a govt that systematically misleads it's citizens and kills innocents regularly.

Look, I'm a bit late to the boat here, but Battlecow did raise some good points. The USA is in a position to act as a kind of world police, due to its huge military and prevent atrocities and in some situations that might the right thing to do. I everyone was getting rather riled up from about page 4 onwards, after a massive derail about legalising drugs. I wouldn't hate on the guy. It's really hard to keep your cool when everyone is against you and calling you stupid or hurling other insults at you.

Also what's with the America hate? I mean, it's far from perfect and probably doesn't even reach good, but it's not exactly terrible. If anything it's probably relatively benign compared to other superpowers

 

[~ Gheb ~]

If anything it's probably relatively benign compared to other superpowers

That's a bold thing to say about a government that spies upon its own citizens as well as foreign ones, that has a concentration camp, that murders 10.000+ civilians in Pakistan, Jemen and Irak every year [and files the victims under "potential terrorists" or something like that] and commits countless violations against human rights. Don't get me wrong though, I'm definitely not saying that the USA should be seen on the same level as something like North Korea or Saudi-Arabia but in the same hand I've yet to hear a good reason why the USA [or the EU in case anybody thinks I'm biased] should be considered more "benign" than say Russia or China.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

Look, I'm a bit late to the boat here, but Battlecow did raise some good points. The USA is in a position to act as a kind of world police, due to its huge military and prevent atrocities and in some situations that might the right thing to do. I everyone was getting rather riled up from about page 4 onwards, after a massive derail about legalising drugs. I wouldn't hate on the guy. It's really hard to keep your cool when everyone is against you and calling you stupid or hurling other insults at you.

Also what's with the America hate? I mean, it's far from perfect and probably doesn't even reach good, but it's not exactly terrible. If anything it's probably relatively benign compared to other superpowers

it kinda crazy that when you criticize your government, people think you hate it. Noone said that America was worse than other superpowers

fwiw, I don't think any consolidation of power on such a massive scale is ok. but hey, Bob picture this. Me and you and a couple other people are stranded on a desert island -- for some reason I have a ton of guns with me. I also consider myself pretty intelligent and moral so I decide to take complete control over the group of people with my massive weaponry in the name of keeping the peace. Would you be cool with that?

Oh and then sometimes i'll bully a few of the less liked individuals in the crowd to give me extra food so that I can engorge myself, that should be cool right? Oh and then sometimes I see you sharpening rocks to make some knives and I yell at you to stop or else, yet the next day you find out i've been doing the exact same thing. but I guess it's ok cuz i already have the moral high ground since I have weapons.

see what I'm getting at?

even if america was the bastion of moral uprightness (which as gheb mentioned and any cursory history lesson will tell you -- it's not), America has it's own vested interests in catering to it's own people (atleast theoretically, some would argue we cater to corporate elites more... but that's a different argument). It needs to serve the interests of it's own people, and those interests might not always align with the interests of the global community at whole. When you have biased policemen, that defeats the whole purpose of having policemen in the first place.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Now it's worth menionting that my own position is that it's silly to have the US act as "THE WORLD POLICE" or whatever. I just think that they should stand up for international law when appropriate and perhaps more importantly stand up for humanitarian causes when appropriate.

That's a bold thing to say about a government that spies upon its own citizens as well as foreign ones, that has a concentration camp, that murders 10.000+ civilians in Pakistan, Jemen and Irak every year [and files the victims under "potential terrorists" or something like that] and commits countless violations against human rights. Don't get me wrong though, I'm definitely not saying that the USA should be seen on the same level as something like North Korea or Saudi-Arabia but in the same hand I've yet to hear a good reason why the USA [or the EU in case anybody thinks I'm biased] should be considered more "benign" than say Russia or China.

The US is a democracy, and China and Russia aren't exactly. China has a far worse record on Human rights than the US. Now the US probably does some of the things China has, but not to the extent that the Chinese do. I believe that in Russia it's not quite as bad as in China but it's still worse than the US. Just for example, torturing "criminals" and prisoners there is much more common in China and Russia than in the US and it's torturing of some people at Guantanamo Bay.

If these countries are doing this kinds of things to their own people, then I would guess that they're capable of doing far, far worse to the citizens of other countries.

fwiw, I don't think any consolidation of power on such a massive scale is ok. but hey, Bob picture this. Me and you and a couple other people are stranded on a desert island -- for some reason I have a ton of guns with me. I also consider myself pretty intelligent and moral so I decide to take complete control over the group of people with my massive weaponry in the name of keeping the peace. Would you be cool with that?

That depends on how you act and the context surrounding your actions.

Oh and then sometimes i'll bully a few of the less liked individuals in the crowd to give me extra food so that I can engorge myself, that should be cool right? Oh and then sometimes I see you sharpening rocks to make some knives and I yell at you to stop or else, yet the next day you find out i've been doing the exact same thing. but I guess it's ok cuz i already have the moral high ground since I have weapons.

Which real world events is this hypothetical meant to be allegorical to? Because you've clearly constructed this to make me disagree with your actions in this hypothetical.

It needs to serve the interests of it's own people, and those interests might not always align with the interests of the global community at whole. When you have biased policemen, that defeats the whole purpose of having policemen in the first place.

I would say that while the US government is there to serve the interests of its people, there is nothing preventing it from doing good things for other nations. I believe that it has done good things for other nations, such as enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya so that Gaddafi couldn't murder his own people.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

The US is a democracy, and China and Russia aren't exactly. China has a far worse record on Human rights than the US. Now the US probably does some of the things China has, but not to the extent that the Chinese do. I believe that in Russia it's not quite as bad as in China but it's still worse than the US. Just for example, torturing "criminals" and prisoners there is much more common in China and Russia than in the US and it's torturing of some people at Guantanamo Bay.

If these countries are doing this kinds of things to their own people, then I would guess that they're capable of doing far, far worse to the citizens of other countries.

As far as external policy is concerned, a government's level of democracy is hardly of any concern. Although most people would probably argue that democracy would be better for the people in China or Russia [something I personally am not sure about] they probably won't care if the army that attacks their country is doing so for a democratic country or a dictatorship. Just because it's the general consensus that democracy is our prefered system we can't just assume that only a democratic country can be trusted in terms of external politics. Looking at the whole conflict in Syria I'd definitely say that Sergeji Lawrov has been a lot more reasonable than John Kerry and I'm sure that hardly anybody cares about which one has been legitimately elected and which one hasn't.
And I know you will probably not like it but the amount of wars that the USA have been involved in alone kind of invalidates any claims for the "police" position. It's simple as that. If you really go for the comparison between Russia, China and the USA throughout the last century, the fact that the USA have been involved in virtually every major war [not too few of them, like Vietnam, have been entirely bogus], in virtually every major coup d'etat and are the only country to ever drop a nuke onto a foreign country [a richely and densely populated one at that] leaves one with no other option than to conclude that you can't call one regime more or less "benign".

When a [semi-]democratic country like Iran chooses to not play along with the USA's game its stigmatized as "rogue state", completely ignoring the fact that Iran has not attacked a foreign country in 200+ years and has been the only reasonably stable democracy in the region. Yet Saudi-Arabia - a fascist, absolutist monarchy and one of the most repressive regimes in the world - has seen US-support for the last couple of decades. The fact that SA has been the [financially and ideologically] strongest supporter of international terrorism alongisde the pakistanian secret service has never seemed to be an issue either.
Now here's the question: Would you trust a government with such questionable external policies to be the policemen of the world? Would you trust them if the country didn't happen to be your own?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

As far as external policy is concerned, a government's level of democracy is hardly of any concern. Although most people would probably argue that democracy would be better for the people in China or Russia [something I personally am not sure about] they probably won't care if the army that attacks their country is doing so for a democratic country or a dictatorship. Just because it's the general consensus that democracy is our prefered system we can't just assume that only a democratic country can be trusted in terms of external politics. Looking at the whole conflict in Syria I'd definitely say that Sergeji Lawrov has been a lot more reasonable than John Kerry and I'm sure that hardly anybody cares about which one has been legitimately elected and which one hasn't.

So if a particular country treats it's citizens poorly its just as likely to treat non-citizens well?

And I know you will probably not like it but the amount of wars that the USA have been involved in alone kind of invalidates any claims for the "police" position. It's simple as that. If you really go for the comparison between Russia, China and the USA throughout the last century, the fact that the USA have been involved in virtually every major war [not too few of them, like Vietnam, have been entirely bogus], in virtually every major coup d'etat and are the only country to ever drop a nuke onto a foreign country [a richely and densely populated one at that] leaves one with no other option than to conclude that you can't call one regime more or less "benign".

I'm not going to debate the validity of nuking Japan. That's for a different time and place. With regards to the US involvement in "virtually" ever major war, I think it's worth mentioning that they often were fighting on the right side. For example, in Korea in the 1950s, in Somalia in the 1990s, in Libya quite recently, and arguably Afghanistan.

When a [semi-]democratic country like Iran chooses to not play along with the USA's game its stigmatized as "rogue state", completely ignoring the fact that Iran has not attacked a foreign country in 200+ years and has been the only reasonably stable democracy in the region.

Iran looks like it wants to build nuclear weapons. I'm pretty sure that they don't need to enrich their uranium any more if they only want to produce power. They're doing it to develop weapons-grade uranium. So, it's good that the international community is trying to put a stop to that. Now, lots of countries of nukes, but the US and Russia have both agreed to reduce the amounts of their Nukes, and they are taking steps in the right direction.

Yet Saudi-Arabia - a fascist, absolutist monarchy and one of the most repressive regimes in the world - has seen US-support for the last couple of decades. The fact that SA has been the [financially and ideologically] strongest supporter of international terrorism alongisde the pakistanian secret service has never seemed to be an issue either.

But is it the government or members of the public?

Now here's the question: Would you trust a government with such questionable external policies to be the policemen of the world? Would you trust them if the country didn't happen to be your own?

I don't even know what "policemen of the world" even means. I said earlier that:

Now it's worth mentioning that my own position is that it's silly to have the US act as "THE WORLD POLICE" or whatever. I just think that they should stand up for international law when appropriate and perhaps more importantly stand up for humanitarian causes when appropriate.

 

[Thor]

I'm a high school debater, so I have a plethora of arguments on both sides of this, because US hegemony (that we can act to maintain order and often intervene in the affairs of others) is fairly common. Here's an argument in favor of that (it's pretty long, I tried to spoiler it to make this less obnoxious and also so those not interested can skip it):

US hegemony prevents wars from intensifying everywhere on earth and alternative systems are unstable and will draw the US back in

Kagan 7, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [Robert “End of Dreams, Return of History” Policy Review http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html#n10]

Spoiler

Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently , Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as “No. 1” and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not only on the goodwill of peoples but also on American power. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe’s stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that’s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn’t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.

And yes we give our evidence tags like that.

P.S: I can elaborate more but I agree with most of what's said here and I think it's a good idea to look to other sources for argumentation. If that's antithetical to the debate room practices (I can't remember anything against citing articles like this), someone let me know and I'll remove it and just make the arguments myself.